"Many writers have spoken of intentional plans by certain Elite to thin-out the world's population; it's a recurring theme among so-called conspiracy theorists. There are frequent references to "useless eaters", which includes the bulk of mankind. Most, when hearing of plots to depopulate the planet, simply say under their breath, "Yeah, right," or more often, while shaking their head, "You're nuts." But when there is a careful examination of writings by prominent authors of this century, pieces of the puzzle certainly do fall into place - pieces which support the contention that there are certain individuals, if not entire governments, who have implemented a program of global genocide in an effort to salvage and corner "resources"."
Have extracted the above from THINNING OUT THE USELESS EATER. It is germane to the following letter (embellished as usual) which provides good fodder for thought.
Unfortunately not much can be done unless some sort of pain factor is introduced. Most are kept busy "barefoot and pregnant" as it were. Mass dissidence primarily by the intellectual community is needed. Unfortunately they are so easily bought, else we should not be in this mess, and will continue to do the bidding of the controllers totally oblivious to the fact that they are next in line in the gravy train!
Extracted from: The Machinations Of The New World Order - The Farmer
The political avoidance of clean energy may not be the expedient option .
Date: November 5, 2006 0:43:59 EST (CA)
Subject: "population reduction" -- or change of paradigm?
Some people have been arguing in their letters to the editor (e.g. C. Humphrey's "Fuel for thought" on November 4th) that because the high consumption of fossil fuels threatens climate stability, "therefore" we have to reduce the human population. To me, this is a "non sequitur" in logic. The second does not necessarily follow from the first; it is only made to appear so because no other options are considered by these letter-writers. And narrowing down the choice in that way opens a big can of worms, such as the methods to be employed for "reducing" the population. What's your preference? Nuclear holocaust? Forced sterlizations? Manufactured plagues to wipe out all but a few (preferably some other ethnic group, perhaps)?
But if other avenues of thinking are opened up, then we should be able to see that humanity need not go down that suicidal road.
What's needed instead is the long-awaited paradigm shift away from the internal-combustion engine toward alternative approaches to clean energy. But the established business interests and cultural inertia have put the brakes on this for at least half a century. When I sent a letter to the editor a few years ago about hydrogen power, the Citizen editor at the time argued with me by telephone that he didn't know the meaning of some of these terms. I was disgusted that someone in a job which helps to shape public opinion should be so proud of his ignorance and refuse to look up the words, but I did comply with the request to add some definitions. In the end a short version of that letter did appear (Monday 21/10/2002) under the general topic area of Kyoto, though it was alongside a rant by someone in Calgary claiming that Kyoto was fraudulent and a "monstrous crime" -- the oilpatch's view of things.
For a clearly made case of technology suppression so that we are forced to keep burning oil, one that "stands up in court", go see the film "Who Killed the Electric Car?" next time it comes to the Bytowne Cinema.
As recounted in that lively and entertaining documentary, both government and big carmakers worked against all of our best interests in suppressing this clean and efficient technology. (Even a car that -- unlike a hybrid -- taps into the grid supply can do so in off-peak hours, and it's a lot easier to put scrubbers into any fuel-using generator than it is to control emissions properly from all those individual cars.) The carmaker spent huge amounts of money to try to convince people NOT to buy these vehicles. To top it off, the Bush Administration and GM used a lawsuit against California to get rid of its forward-looking legislation that would have brought about the goal of having 10% of cars to be zero-emission by now. Led by such interests, Canada and the US still subsidize oil and gas, and tolerate this kind of counter-environmentalism. And though the big American carmakers got their way, they have lost significant market share to the more efficient foreign cars. It's a case of shooting themselves in the foot.
It's time to end that self-destructive business behaviour. And further, it's time -- long past time, actually -- to take action against the thugs and bullies who are still getting away with the crime of making death threats against independent researchers, inventors and back-yard tinkerers who are working to perfect the non-combustion energy technologies of the future. There are many documented cases of vandalism, prototype destruction, threats, and actual attacks occurring over several decades -- including some this past year.
Just enter words like "suppression + clean energy + death threat" into your search engine and see what comes up. You can find the actual reports of individuals close to a breakthrough, or actually achieving a working prototype, who backed off and destroyed their plans and took down websites when a gun was poked into their faces and their families were threatened with murder.
We might already be enjoying that cleaner future if these crimes were being thoroughly reported and justice implemented. It's even more important now to muster the political will to have these crimes of violence against scientists and against science, which are also crimes against humanity at large, properly investigated and prosecuted.
There are also ways to make fuel from waste using a new branch of science called "hadronic chemistry" which can tailor the fuel produced to have only breathable gases as its emissions. Look up "magnegas" in your search engine. Isn't it about time we had this option available in Canada? It sounds like a possible solution to the wastes from factory farming, as well as to expand the supply of clean-burning fuels for cooking and home heating.
What we need is a truly free market in which people have the right to create and manufacture devices and products with zero or safe emissions, and the public has the right to choose freely to buy them and use them without hindrance. Then our biological footprints on the ecosystem would be a lot lighter, and we wouldn't need to engage in these Malthusian musings about the need for mass murders and probably genocides in order to "save the planet".